As the author states in the last paragraph, this is exactly the same argument as with piracy, but the OP is in a worse position to make it because the author ha

As the author states in the last paragraph, this is exactly the same argument as with piracy, but the OP is in a worse position to make it because the author has to pay for traffic - unlike pirated music/ebooks/software, where pirates generously share the bandwidth costs. And the impression I get is the same as with piracy. A few % have no problem because they are huge, have a devoted following, another income stream or because they post link-bait without mercy. It's like the lottery winners calling other people stupid for not winning. (Same reasoning in the software world: Adobe still exists despite lots of people torrenting Photoshop, Apple doesn't even bother to add copy protection to its OS, so then why are all the little crybaby studios whining about piracy?! Similar examples exist for games, music...) The headline, as explained in the article, is also a tautology. Because if a site goes bankrupt due to ad blocking, it is the staff's fault, and therefore the site did not go bankrupt due to ad blocking. Besides, it is conveniently hard to prove for what reason a site went bankrupt - same story as with pirated goods again.